Wouter Van Dooren

Lost in diffusion? How collaborative arrangements lead to an accountability paradox

Several authors have documented a shift from traditional bureaucracies to collaborative arrangements with joint public and private involvement. This article studies the impact of this shift on accountability. We conclude from our explorative case analysis of Public— Private Partnership (PPP) policy in Flanders (Belgium) that there is an accountability paradox. Many prominent players in the policy arena point to serious shortcomings in the accountability of complex PPPs. Yet, with the introduction of PPPs, the number of accountability mechanisms did increase rather than decrease. This remarkable inconsistency between accountability as a tool and as a result is the main focus of this article. How can we avoid that accountability gets lost in the diffusion of public and private responsibilities? Points for practitioners Most research concludes that there is something wrong with accountability in PPPs. Our empirical analysis confirms in general this negative interpretation. The respondents share important concerns about how accountability works nowadays in practice. We therefore state that: the shift towards PPPs erodes the traditional notion of accountability; it entails new tools of accountability with a strong emphasis on performance; these tools, however, do not counterbalance the eroded traditional notion of accountability. Yet, they also share a remarkable optimism about the accountability potential of PPPs. With the necessary modifications (minor or major) a balance between the democratic, constitutional and performance functions of accountability can be found.

Nothing New Under the Sun? Change and Continuity in the Twentieth-Century Performance Movements

In a critical analysis, Radin (2006) argued that the concern for performance in the United States has become so ubiquitous that it has taken the form of a movement — the performance movement. It is characterized by a mindset of long-term and mid-term goal setting, indicators, and quantitative measurement. In this chapter, I argue that we have witnessed not one, but several performance movements that have attempted to measure government outputs or outcomes in the twentieth century.

Reality is Merely an Illusion, Albeit a Persistent One: Introduction to the Performance Measurement Symposium

The performance literature often draws the distinction between ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ measures (OECD, 2006). For example, citizens’ fear of crime is said to be ‘subjective’ because it rests on the expression of individual opinion while crime incidence statistics are seen as objective. The relative utility of objective and subjective approaches is in fact a classic debate in social measurement. In the 1970s, there was a clear divide between the Scandinavian and the Anglo-American schools of the social indicator movement (Cobb and Rixford, 1998). Following the Nordic perspective, quality of life was assessed through measures of real deprivation such as income, quality of housing, schooling, etc. The Americans, on the other hand, defined quality of life based on citizens’ experiences. Since the 1970s, the debate has changed in two respects. First, the positions seem no longer attributable to geographical circumscriptions. Rather, it has become a debate between scientific positions. On the one hand, there is the Popperian tradition that assumes an objective truth independent of the knowing subject. It implies that performance is a reality that can be uncovered through measurement. On the other hand, the Kuhnian tradition assumes that truth in science is a socially constructed paradigm. Performance in this view is intersubjective rather than objective, and measurement is an integral part of the definition of performance. Generally speaking, it seems that the Popperian tradition is more widespread in economics while the Kuhnian approach has more adherents in public administration and political science. We do not believe, however, that this is fundamentally a difference between disciplines. Economic concepts such as supply, demand, cost and benefits of measurement can be combined with concepts such as power, symbolism and social construction. The difference, however, lies in whether measurement inThe articles in this special issue were presented in the Permanent Study Group on Public Sector Performance of the European Group of Public Administration (EGPA), convened at the Instituto Nacional de Administracion Publica in Madrid (2007). The Study Group focuses on various aspects of public sector performance. Public sector performance topics in the past have included trust and satisfaction indicators, performance measurement and management and the use of performance information.This is the introduction to the symposium.

Supply and demand of policy indicators

The amount of measurement in the public sector in Europe is increasing. The United Kingdom in particular may be proclaimed the most measured public sector in Europe, if not the world. Continental public administrations with a more Latin administrative culture do measure performance as well. Although performance measurement is paramount, many complaints are heard. Civil servants criticize that politicians are not using the performance information. Politicians complain that reliable performance information is not available. Politicians and civil servants complain that their own policy sector is hard to measure, if not immeasurable, when you compare it to other sectors. This article seeks an empirical insight in the administrative supply and political demand of performance information. To what extent do supply and demand meet? What is the quality of the supply and which policy sectors measure more? The methodology is a documentary analysis of parliamentary proceedings, i.e. the Members of Parliaments (MP) questions to the executive in the region of Flanders, Belgium.

How is Information Used to Improve Performance in the Public Sector? Exploring the Dynamics of Performance Information

In this chapter, we challenge the assumption of a direct relationship between the existence and availability of information, and its use in decisions. We will do so by integrating three different sets of literature. Other chapters in this book stress organisations’ capacities and capabilities to produce a turnaround, or refer to contextual factors that make a turnaround difficult. Our basic argument is that the fact that information exists does not mean it will also be used by those in charge. A first set of arguments comes from a somewhat more recent field of study looking at the actual use of performance information by decision makers in the public sector (Van Dooren & Van de Walle, 2008). The second part will focus on structural and organisational factors that may facilitate or complicate the diffusion of information through an organisation. The third part will briefly introduce psychological factors that make that certain pieces of information are excluded from consideration in decision making. We will subsequently integrate this information and distil the major trends. We end by discussing the implication of our findings on public organisations’ ability to connect knowledge to performance.

Financial management reforms after a political shift : a transformative perspective

Purpose – The purpose of the article is to study the transformation of reform discourse after a major political shift and to discuss some of the factors that may explain change and continuity in reforms.Design/methodology/approach – The study is an embedded case study of four financial reform initiatives in two countries with a political majority system: Australia and the USA. Data gathering is a combination of face‐to‐face interviews and the study of secondary sources.Findings – Reforms do survive political shifts, but they are transformed through political and administrative processes. The retranslation of reforms seeks a correspondence to the dominant ideological environment and challenges the balance of power. Political elites are important but the position of political elites cannot be interpreted solely from their party political standpoint. Reform discourse is a relevant research subject to study the dynamics in reforms.Originality/value – The main research issues in reform research are about the g...

Introduction: Using Public Sector Performance Information

Martha S. Feldman, a distinguished student of the role of information in organizations and in decision making starts her seminal book Order without Design by writing about her experiences undertaking fieldwork for a research project in the US Department of Energy: When I explained to the members of this office that I was interested in how the policy office produces information and how it was used, I was met time and again with the response that the information is not used. (Feldman, 1989: 1)

Trajectories for Modernizing Local Governance: Revisiting the Flanders Case

Local government plays a central but altering role in local governance. Together with the shift from a night-watchman state to a welfare state , the models of governance provision changed. Government itself became larger and more scattered throughout the local community. Moreover, government was no longer the only governance provider. Many actors were involved in governance with a diversity of steering relations. In our time, governance continues to change. What are the emerging models of local governance today? After sorting out some terminological and methodological issues, we describe four emerging ideal-type models (i.e. the holding model , the autonomous networks model , the implementation model and the reintegration model ), based on four societal scenarios (i.e. triumphant markets , hundred flowers , creative societies and turbulent neighbourhoods ). The models represent four possible local governance futures. Next, the models are applied on two management issues: organizational structure and financial management. Finally, some embryonic evidence is given on the emergence of the models.

Chapter 12 In Search of Network Performance

Networks are many things1, but certainly an important feature in contemporary government. In an era of collaboration, as Agranoff and McGuire (2003) 2 label it, governments are increasingly networked, using and engaging in all sorts of networks to achieve policy goals. Often, working in and through networks is regarded as the best or even only way to solve wicked problems (Goldsmith & Eggers, 2004). However, at the same time, criticism towards networks as a problem-solving strategy seems to increase in the field: they cost money, are time-consuming, cause transparency and accountability problems and so on (Huxham & Vangen, 2005; Kenis & Provan, 2009; Sorensen & Torfing, 2007). In the region of Flanders (Belgium), for instance, one of the main political issues is to regain grip on the hollowed out state, where much policy making and policy-making capacity is said to be ‘lost’ in a nebula of networks of which neither politicians nor public managers can make sense anymore.